Jump to content


Aristocratic

Member Since 24 Sep 2005
Offline Last Active Jul 17 2007 06:16 PM
*****

Topics I've Started

Paris Hilton sent back to jail.

08 June 2007 - 04:40 PM

Source

QUOTE
LOS ANGELES - Paris Hilton was sent screaming and crying back to jail Friday after a judge ruled that she must serve out her sentence behind bars rather than in the comfort of her Hollywood Hills home.

“It’s not right!” shouted Hilton, who violated her probation in a reckless driving case. “Mom!” she cried out to her mother.

The 26-year-old hotel heiress was taken handcuffed from her home in a black-and-white police car, paparazzi sprinting in pursuit and helicopters broadcasting live from above. She entered the courtroom disheveled and weeping, hair askew, without makeup, wearing a fuzzy gray sweat shirt over slacks.

She cried throughout the hearing, dabbing her eyes, and her body shook constantly. Several times she turned to her parents, seated behind her in the courtroom, and mouthed, “I love you.” TMZ.com reported that Hilton's family will file an appeal, maybe as soon as Friday afternoon.

Hilton was taken to a treatment center at the downtown Twin Towers jail for medical and psychiatric examination to determine which facility she will be held in, said sheriff’s spokesman Steve Whitmore.

“She’ll be there for at least a couple of days,” he said.

Despite being ordered to serve the remainder of her original 45-day sentence, Hilton could still be released early. Inmates are given a day off their terms for every four days of good behavior, and her days in home detention counted as time served.

Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer was calm but apparently irked by Sheriff Lee Baca’s decision to release Hilton three days into her sentence due to an unspecified “medical condition.”

“I at no time condoned the actions of the sheriff and at no time told him I approved the actions,” Sauer said. “At no time did I approve the defendant being released from custody to her home.”

Hearing sought by prosecutors
The hearing was requested by the city attorney’s office, which had prosecuted Hilton and wanted Baca held in contempt for releasing Hilton despite Sauer’s express order that she must serve her time in jail. The judge took no action on the contempt request.

A member of the county counsel’s staff said Baca was willing to come to court with medical personnel. The judge did not take him up on the offer.

Assistant City Attorney Dan F. Jeffries argued that Hilton’s incarceration was purely up to the judge. “Her release after only three days erodes confidence in the judicial system,” he said.

Hilton’s attorney, Richard Hutton, implored the judge to order a hearing in his chambers to hear testimony about Hilton’s medical condition before making a decision. The judge did not respond to that suggestion.

Another of her attorneys, Steve Levine, said, “The sheriff has determined that because of her medical situation, (jail) is a dangerous place for her.”

“The court’s role here is to let the Sheriff’s Department run the jail,” he said.

Judge didn't receive papers from sheriff
The judge interrupted several times to say that he had received a call last Wednesday from an undersheriff informing him that Hilton had a medical condition and that he would submit papers to the judge to consider. He said the papers never arrived.

Every few minutes, the judge would interrupt proceedings, state the time on the clock, and note that the papers still had not arrived.

He also noted that he had heard that a private psychiatrist visited Hilton in jail, and he wondered if that person played a role in deciding her medical needs.

The last attorney to speak was another deputy city attorney, David Bozanich, who declared, “This is a simple case. There was a court order. The Sheriff’s Department chose to violate that order. There is no ambiguity.”

Hilton’s twisted jailhouse saga began Sept. 7, when she failed a sobriety test after police saw her weaving down a street in her Mercedes-Benz on what she said was a late-night hamburger run.

She pleaded no contest to reckless driving and was sentenced to 36 months’ probation, alcohol education and $1,500 in fines. In the months that followed she was stopped twice while driving on a suspended license. The second stop landed her in Sauer’s courtroom.

Back before Sauer on Friday, Hilton’s entire body trembled as the final pitch was made for her further incarceration. She clutched a ball of tissue and tears ran down her face.

Seconds later, the judge announced his decision: “The defendant is remanded to county jail to serve the remainder of her 45-day sentence. This order is forthwith.”

Hilton screamed.

Eight deputies immediately ordered all spectators out of the courtroom. Hilton’s mother, Kathy, threw her arms around her husband, Rick, and sobbed uncontrollably.

Deputies escorted Hilton out of the room, holding each of her arms as she looked back.


Gee, that was fast.

Viacom sues Google for $1 billion.

13 March 2007 - 06:10 PM

Source

QUOTE
The lawsuit, the first big attack on the Google-owned video-sharing site, may just be a negotiating ploy. But it could be the first volley in a war between Google and its old-media rivals.

By Elizabeth Strott

Just days after Google (GOOG, news, msgs) CEO Eric Schmidt said that media companies will have no choice but to work with online sites such as YouTube, the first of the big media companies has responded -- with a $1 billion lawsuit.

Media giant Viacom (VIA, news, msgs) is charging that the video-sharing site, now owned by Google, has shown 160,000 of its videos without permission.

"Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws," Viacom said.

Google spokesman Ricardo Reyes said in a statement that the company has "not received the lawsuit but (is) confident that YouTube has respected the legal rights of copyright holders and believe the courts will agree." Reyes said the suit would not "become a distraction to the continuing growth and strong performance of YouTube."

Corporate arrogance?
One intellectual-property expert said he was "not surprised" by the suit.

"I think this is a problem for Google," said Justin Hughes, director of Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law's Intellectual Property Law Program. "Google has had a series of situations where it looks like corporate arrogance regarding intellectual property."

In buying YouTube, Google bought a business model largely based on infringement, Hughes said. Google's Book Search Library Project also suggests a corporate disregard for intellectual property, he added.

Partners or rivals?
Schmidt's earlier comments may have been a way to put pressure on Viacom and other media conglomerates as the one-time video upstart tries to negotiate terms for licensing deals.

Last month, after talks about a licensing deal failed, YouTube said it would remove 100,000 Viacom clips, including a number from Comedy Central shows.

"The growth of YouTube, the growth of online, is so fundamental that these companies are going to be forced to work with and in the Internet," Schmidt said last week in an interview on Bloomberg Television's "Conversations with Judy Woodruff."

The lawsuit "is an initial attempt to move negotiations along," Bear Stearns analyst Robert Peck wrote in a note to clients today. "Both sides would be better served with an agreement."

But not everyone agrees. "Viacom's Web traffic is increasing nicely since it pulled content from 'GooTube,' " Richard Greenfield, an analyst at Pali Capital, told Reuters. "There is certainly an opportunity for YouTube to do a deal with Viacom, but Viacom does not have to have a YouTube deal."

Policing the site
The problem with YouTube, Viacom and the other big media players say, is that it will pull copyright clips only after its been asked to do so, putting the burden of policing content on the copyright holders and allowing users to re-post illegal copies as soon as they are removed.

Google and YouTube are relying on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998, which criminalizes technology whose primary purpose is to circumvent measures that control access to copyright works -- even when there is no actual infringement.

If a site removes content "expeditiously" when it receives notice from the copyright holder, then the site has a so-called safe harbor from lawsuits.

The problem, Hughes said, was that the act, written during an earlier, pre-Napster Internet era, was not designed for infringement-based business models. While the act is unlikely to be rewritten, Hughes said it is open to judicial interpretation -- and added that a judge could come down hard on Google.
More lawsuits to come?
Meanwhile, media companies have been investing in their own Web video capabilities in an attempt to drive video traffic to their own sites.

Although Viacom, the owner of MTV Networks, Comedy Central and several other cable channels, as well as Paramount Pictures, is the first of the big media conglomerates to sue YouTube, it may not be the last.

News Corp. (NWS, news, msgs), General Electric's (GE, news, msgs) NBC Universal and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban have also criticized YouTube. News Corp. and Cuban have both gone to court to force the company to identify people who illegally uploaded copyright material.

Bob Tur, a freelance helicopter reporter who shot video during the Los Angeles riots in 1991 and who has sued YouTube over the publication of his videos, told CNBC that YouTube's business model is like that of TV's Sopranos: They "don't pay for anything, get your content for nothing and sell it to the highest advertiser. It's a wonderful business model, except it's illegal."


Discuss. Who do you think will win?

Video

Warning Bug

28 February 2007 - 07:06 PM

I warned Tobiaz 10% but then it appeared as 0%.

DONT YA

15 February 2007 - 12:38 AM

DONT YA WISH UR GURFREND WUZ HAWT LYK ME? DONT YA? DONT YA BABE?

Sleepywood plans to sue MapleTip.

08 February 2007 - 08:01 PM

QUOTE
fck mapltp dey sck mi hiry cock evry nite. dey dink dey all kewl bcuz day hab mor ppl registrd den us. dey alwayz compain abot us modz doin bad job n shitz n itz tym 4 da sleeepiwod staf 2 sue dem. we got da wrldz best 10 atornies n we cant los. losin syd wil haf 2 pay 20m meso. we wil b in suprme kort. cherz.

-Sleepiwod Staf

Discuss.